Nature, Nurture, or Choice?
- Thread starter karrie
- Start date
We are just replicating DNA just like all other organisms on the planet. But, a beaver living in over crowded conditions, will eat pine bark to abort a pregnancy so as not to make the situation worse. This is not a conscious choice, it is instinct, something that seems to be built into most species. The human race has never lived in such huge crowded cities as we have today in all the rest of its time on this planet. Cities, like Toronto, and Montreal, are, for all intents and purposes, unnaturally overcrowded. Perhaps male/female sexual preferences are the norm in nature, but cities, being as they are, tend to produce humans with a variety of sexual preferences possibly in an attempt to control the over population. In a natural, open setting you may not see so many infertile couples as you do in the city.
Any way, I don't think that under the conditions of city life, homosexuality is any more unnatural than living in such overcrowding. I think nature and our DNA have built in mechanisms to balance these situations, so I don't think sexual orientation is a choice, but has a lot to do with environmental conditions.
Any way, I don't think that under the conditions of city life, homosexuality is any more unnatural than living in such overcrowding. I think nature and our DNA have built in mechanisms to balance these situations, so I don't think sexual orientation is a choice, but has a lot to do with environmental conditions.
Abnormal behaviour is still expected...normal means conforming to a standard or the average. But populations aren't constrained by such foolish notions. Homosexuality is not the norm at the population level, but, it is natural. It does provide benefits, such as increased fecundity and reproductive success. It is expected...there's more to life than just what is normal.
I think trying to draw a line between natural and unnatural is a mug's game. I really have a hard time grasping how anything that happens in nature at all could be anything but natural. To call homosexuality unnatural seems to me a moral judgment based on a certain set of human values, which while also natural in the same sense are highly variable across cultures; not all cultures would agree that homosexuality is "unnatural." Only humans have developed ethical and moral codes, and we use them to make judgments about the way we think things ought to be, which won't necessarily have much to do with the way things are.
How about thinking of it this way? Homosexuality is abnormal in the individual but normal in the that there is a ratio of homosexuals found in an entire population. :smile:
When did I decide I was straight?
That's easy for me to remember even though it took place about 55 years ago ~ there was this gorgeous little girl named Maria in my kindergarten class. She had the most striking dark Spanish eyes! Though I have never seen her all these years i still remember how entranced I was when we were playmates!
That's easy for me to remember even though it took place about 55 years ago ~ there was this gorgeous little girl named Maria in my kindergarten class. She had the most striking dark Spanish eyes! Though I have never seen her all these years i still remember how entranced I was when we were playmates!
I think you talk of morals because it is the only logical argument you can make against what I am saying. I don't find homosexuality immoral at all, I am not religious nor do I care what consenting adults do behind closed doors. The problem here is that people want to have a conversation, but they don't want to have an honest conversation.
Having sex with children is unnatural and immoral and disgusting, but there are plenty of people who will advocate for this behavior and claim that it is natural. The thing I love about these conversations is that it becomes a virtual minefield of accusations and innuendo. The next logical step would be to accuse me of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, which I am not, but when comes down to brass tax there are different levels of deviation from what nature deems normal.
I don't think 'unnatural' is a truth. Cancer, like it or not, is natural, and occurs for all manner of reasons. Birth defects, mutations, etc.... all natural. Variances in the population are natural, and occur in all animal populations. 'Not the norm', I'd give you that. But not unnatural
What is kind of scary to me is when I think back to what was immoral and unacceptable 50 years ago is now considered moral and acceptable, what is going to be moral and acceptable in another 50 years, or will it turn back the other way? :smile:
Sure they do, but that does not make it the norm or natural. It simply is a factor into whether a body has defects. Homosexuality also occurs among animals, but that does not make it normal behavior. The reaction to what I am saying is born out of ignorance by those who held some moral high ground in regard to homosexuality and there are those who try very hard to use that as reason for pretending that it is the norm.
Mutations are not natural. They are deviations, defective occurrences that result from a myriad of issues. From oxygen deprivation, to drug use, to issues within the womb.
Identifying that is not an attack on the condition or the person. It's just being honest.
Keep in mind that many changes come with balance. For things that were immoral and now aren't, there are also things that were considered just fine, that we've moved to revile. The balance will shift again I'm sure.
So you're saying evolution is not natural? Because the whole thing is based on the mutation of genes RCS. I'm not basing this on a moral highground, just science. I didn't read you as attacking anything, just looking at the scientific basis here.
No, you misread what I said. I wasn't saying that you are preaching from a moral highground. I am saying that thanks to those who did, we are ever leery to have an honest conversation. Are mutations a part of evolution? I suppose they are, I'm not arguing that it happens. It does, but it is still not part of the way we are wired. Perhaps in a 1000 years it might well be, but the argument is really kind of an apples and oranges thing isn't it. Or perhaps a play on words. You say natural, I say normal.
You ask my opinion based on what I know , I give it to you. I do not stand in judgment nor do I say that we should mark people with a scarlet letter. When I was a kid I had a friend who was born without a hand and I remember being coached not to say anything or stare or ask questions. He knew it was normal to be born without a hand, but people around him wanted to silence discussion for fear of making him feel like an outcast. Sometimes bold language and honesty make us feel accepted and even normal.
Last edited:
Yep, when we were kids we used to get whuppin's for such things as cheekiness, lying and not doing what we were told and that was considered just fine (and they actually did us some good), now if you give the brat a licken, the cops will likely show up at your door. :lol:
You're flipping back and forth between two different terms which mean VERY different things to me here RCS, so until you decide on one, the discussion is moot.
Homosexuality is not the norm. I will not disagree with you on that.
Homosexuality is not natural. That I would strenuously disagree with you on, based on scientific study.
But, like I said... until you settle on one, there's not point debating when we might be agreeing.
Well it does kind of muddy the water, but really it's semantics.
When I look up the word "Natural" there are several definitions. One being:
- (biology) functioning or occurring in a normal way; lacking abnormalities or deficiencies
- In accordance with scientific laws.
So, I'll leave it at that and lay down me poison pen.
